Smith v. Salinas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
EDWARD JAMES SMITH, JR.,
(TDCJ # 00671560),
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
vs.
LUPE SALINAS,
§ 	CIVIL ACTIONNO. H-26-3150
§
§
§
§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER·
Plaintiff Edward James Smith, Jr., (TDCJ # 00671560), is an inmate at the
Stringfellow Unit 	of the 	Texas 	Department 	of Criminal 	Justice-Correctional
Institutions Division. 	In April 2026, an individual named Joycelyn Rubins filed
what purported to be a prisoner's civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on
Smith's behalf. 	(Dkt. 1). 	She also filed motion seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on his behalf. (Dkt. 4). Neither of these documents were signed by Smith.
Because these pleadings did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
they were stricken. (Dkt. 6). Smith was granted leave to file an amended complaint
and ari amended motion to proceed informa pauperis bf June 1, 2026, ifhe wished
to pursue this action. 	(Id. at 9). The Court provided him with the proper forms for
filing an amended petition and amended motion and warned him that failing to
1/ 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03150 Document 7 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

comply by the deadline would result in this action being dismissed without further
notice. 	(Id. at 9~10).
Smith has failed to comply, and his time to do so has now ·expired. His failure
to pursue this action forces the Court to conclude that he lacks due diligence.
Therefore, under the inherent powers necessarily vested in a court to manage its own
affairs, the Court determines that dismissal for want of prosecution is appropriate.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998)
(noting that a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute
or to comply with any court order).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Smith's 	civil-rights 	action, 	(Dkt. 	1), 	1s 	DISMISSED 	without
prejudice for want of prosecution.
2. 	Any pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. 	Smith is advised that upon a showing of good cause for failing to
comply with the Court's April 24 Order, relief from this Order may be granted under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 	Any motion under Rule 60(b) must be
accompanied by Smith's amended petition on the proper form and either payment
of the $405 .00 filing fee or a properly supported motion to proc-eed in forma
pauperis.
2/ 3
Case 4:26-cv-03150 Document 7 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3/ 3
, 2026 ..
:;::ka:~::::~~:::::noftltls ;;t.,: pl7:·
9)~ibu~i::l__	_..
DAVID HITTNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-03150 Document 7 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3